Tate cohomology and Gorensteinness for triangulated categories (Q2497419)

Let \(\mathcal C\) be a triangulated category. It is a problem to define properly Tate cohomology in such a general situation. The authors solve the problem by the following construction. Let \(\mathcal E\) be a class of triangles. Then an \(\mathcal E\)-complex is given by a sequence of elements \(\Delta_n\) in \(\mathcal E\), where \(n\in\mathbb Z\), so that the right term of \(\Delta_{n+1}\) equals the left term of \(\Delta_n\). A complex is called \({\mathcal C}(-,{\mathcal P}({\mathcal E}))\) complete if for every \(\mathcal E\)-projective object \(P\), applying the contravariant functor with respect to \(P\) to each of the triangles defining the complex gives an exact sequence. Dually \({\mathcal C}({\mathcal I}({\mathcal E}),-)\) completely is defined for \(\mathcal E\)-injective objects. Then the authors show that a \({\mathcal C}(-,{\mathcal P}({\mathcal E}))\) complete resolution always exists, under suitable hypotheses, and is unique up to a suitably defined homotopy. The \(\mathcal E\)-Tate cohomology projective version is then defined to be the cohomology of the resolution. Dually the \(\mathcal E\)-Tate cohomology injective version may be defined. Usually the two versions will differ. The authors show that \(\mathcal E\)-Tate cohomology of an object \(A\) vanishes with \(A\) in both arguments in degree \(0\), then the Tate cohomology vanishes in the first argument as well as in the second argument in all degrees. Finally the authors study when the injective and the projective versions of Tate cohomology coincide. They give a criterion using the supremum of the \(\mathcal E\)-injective dimensions of \(\mathcal E\)-projective objects, and the supremum of the \(\mathcal E\)-projective dimensions of \(\mathcal E\)-injective objects. They define \(\mathcal C\) \(n\)-\(\mathcal E\)-Gorenstein categories as those for which every object has projective and injective dimension less or equal to \(n\). The authors characterise these categories in terms of these two suprema and show that then the relative Tate cohomology of the injective and projective version coincide.